I see what you're saying but it doesn't disprove my post.Originally Posted by das_nut
While you may not like it, in the US, hunters have been a powerful source for conservation.
The funding for wildlife officials comes, in part, from hunting and fishing licenses.
While I dislike certain hunters and hunting subcultures, I'm going to choose my battles wisely. I'd rather spend my energies ranting on factory farming.
Personally, I don't find there's a need to decide where to put one's energy.
Heh, my reasons for conservation are somewhat self-centered. I want pretty places to enjoy.
Please explain.
Well focusing only on factory farming - lest one do something really "out there", like imply that non-humans' moral status shouldn't be reduced to that of shooting targets - doesn't at least in practice separate a conservative AW view from an AR one.
No.
I'm saying that it won't have any long term effect on the way we see other species. The overwhelmingly greatest non-human problem has to do with the use of animals in agriculture, experimentation, entertainment and as "pets". Wild animals certainly suffer from our wasteful lifestyle, and habitats are destroyed, and so on, but that's a minor concern compared to the billions and billions of animals tortured and killed in captivity each day. To address the latter problem we would have to change our moral views on animals, and conservation doesn't seem to me to contribute to that goal. On the contrary, I find it distressing that people can be so concerned about pandas or some wild animals on the verge of extinction when the greatest tragedy happens on their dinner tables.Originally Posted by Ludi
So, when you say these values won't help animals, are you saying they won't help individual animals? That is, by preserving an animal's habitat, that individual animal is not being helped by having her home preserved?
I guess I'm just not sure how it is animals "won't be helped" by conservation.
Exactly.